Helena Sukova nominated for Hall of Fame?

I know the Hall of Fame often gets mocked here(Chang, Noah, Shriver are in) but I think they are taking it to another level with this nomination.

And I can't understand the logic in this choice, she's not American or was hugely popular in America(let's be honest, that stuff is a factor in the HOF, they need to induct people that will draw a crowd & to induct people that will show up)

Did they need to get one more person in this class or something?

NEWPORT, R.I. (AP) -- Five-time major champion Martina Hingis, 1991 Wimbledon winner Michael Stich and doubles star Helena Sukova are among the nominees for the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

Hingis, the youngest woman to be ranked No. 1, retired for the second time in 2007, when she was given a two-year suspension for testing positive for cocaine at Wimbledon. Hingis denied taking the drug but did not appeal the ruling.

Others nominees for the hall's class of 2013 announced Thursday are Thelma Coyne Long, a Grand Slam champion in the 1930s to 1950s, and three nominees in the contributor category: ESPN broadcaster Cliff Drysdale, Charlie Pasarell and Ion Tiriac.

Voting for the hall's class of 2013 will take place over the next several months. The induction ceremony is July 13.

Click to expand...

and there's actually some debate here whether Roddick will get in.

for the record I'm a Sukova fan, think she was a better player than many of the WTA one slam wonders(and her win over Martina at '84 AO was one of the best womens matches I've ever seen) but HOF?

Fernandez & Zvereva were inducted together as a doubles team, without their singles career being a factor at all. And they were the 2nd most successful team after Navratilova/Shriver.

Sukova is being inducted alone, and is her doubles alone extraordinary? I think they are inducting her for her doubles alone, not her singles(which is in no way HOF worthy) Again this seems very weird. Unless she has contributed to the game in other ways I'm not aware of.

I always enjoyed watching Helena in both singles and doubles. She was involved in a lot of great matches ....1984 Australian SF, 1986 French Open SF, 1987 Eastbourne SF, 1987 Wimbledon QF, and 1989 Australian QF to name a few. She had a brief resergence in 1993 though well past her prime. She had a great doubles record and success with multiple partners.

But HOF? Even I question that. I don't believe she will get enough votes.

Fernandez & Zvereva were inducted together as a doubles team, without their singles career being a factor at all. And they were the 2nd most successful team after Navratilova/Shriver.

Sukova is being inducted alone, and is her doubles alone extraordinary? I think they are inducting her for her doubles alone, not her singles(which is in no way HOF worthy) Again this seems very weird. Unless she has contributed to the game in other ways I'm not aware of.

Click to expand...

Well it could be a combination of her singles and doubles play couldnt it? Not quite enough in either singles or doubles alone to get in (even with currently lowly laughable HOF standards) but combinining the two enough. Some on the WTA forum think Stosur will get in for the same reasons and I think Sukova is every bit as worthy if not more than Stosur, even if Sam is the one with the singles slam.

I really like Sukova, but it is a surprising pick, IMO. The issue isn't if she was a great player - she was, and she had a great career.

But, lot's of great players have great careers but don't get into the HOF.

Sukova presents the question of how to treat players who excel in doubles - 9 doubles Slams, 5 mixed Slams, 69 titles overall. That's impressive. And, unlike some elite doubles player (Gigi Fernandez, for example), she was a heck of a singles player - 4 slam finals, 10 titles, wins vs. all the top players. That alone wouldn't get her in, but on top of her doubles exploits it's pretty amazing.

I know the Hall of Fame often gets mocked here(Chang, Noah, Shriver are in) but I think they are taking it to another level with this nomination.

And I can't understand the logic in this choice, she's not American or was hugely popular in America(let's be honest, that stuff is a factor in the HOF, they need to induct people that will draw a crowd & to induct people that will show up)

Click to expand...

How is her being American or not being American relevant to being in the Hall of Fame? It's an International Honour. American's don't/shouldn't get prioritized over any other nation (and American's wouldn't want to be given special priviledges either - they would want to get in on their own merits).

How is her being American or not being American relevant to being in the Hall of Fame? It's an International Honour. American's don't/shouldn't get prioritized over any other nation (and American's wouldn't want to be given special priviledges either - they would want to get in on their own merits).

Click to expand...

I read an interview with Tony Trabert(who ran the HOF) a few years ago. He implied that since the Hall of Fame isn't exactly raking in the dough(do many people travel there year round & pay for tickets to see their exhibits like so many of the hall of fames in other sports?), they needed to induct players that would show up if they were inducted. And that some players drew a lot more media attention & ticket requests for their induction than others. Draw your own conclusions as to what that means(& take that into consideration everytime posters here whine about their standards being lowered. The fact is they need to induct a certain amount of players every year in order to survive. Its not like the Baseball Hall of Fame which is such a bigger deal in terms of fan attendance & money - that they go some years without inducting anyone)

"international tennis hall of fame?" maybe, but the fact is it is in Rhode Island, which is in the US. Its a lot easier for Americans to show up & have a lot of their friends & families show up than it is for non Americans. I believe all the voters for the Hall of Fame are Americans as well.

I'm guessing the year Andy Roddick gets inducted, they will have no trouble getting a good crowd to show up.

So far it's only a nomination. Do all nominees get inducted?

Click to expand...

It seems that way(in recent years)
I guess Andy Murray could still get in at some point, even if he wins no majors.

I read an interview with Tony Trabert(who ran the HOF) a few years ago. He implied that since the Hall of Fame isn't exactly raking in the dough(do many people travel there year round & pay for tickets to see their exhibits like so many of the hall of fames in other sports?), they needed to induct players that would show up if they were inducted. And that some players drew a lot more media attention & ticket requests for their induction than others. Draw your own conclusions as to what that means(& take that into consideration everytime posters here whine about their standards being lowered. The fact is they need to induct a certain amount of players every year in order to survive. Its not like the Baseball Hall of Fame which is such a bigger deal in terms of fan attendance & money - that they go some years without inducting anyone)

"international tennis hall of fame?" maybe, but the fact is it is in Rhode Island, which is in the US. Its a lot easier for Americans to show up & have a lot of their friends & families show up than it is for non Americans. I believe all the voters for the Hall of Fame are Americans as well.

I'm guessing the year Andy Roddick gets inducted, they will have no trouble getting a good crowd to show up.

It seems that way(in recent years)
I guess Andy Murray could still get in at some point, even if he wins no majors.

Click to expand...

Interesting posts. I know Newport is a very scenic "high-class" home for the HOF, but I wonder if it would be better simply as part of or adjacent to the National Tennis Center (assuming that if it were ever to move, it would stay in the USA). That way it would be located in a major city, more potential patrons during the year, and the USO crowds would always be a source of attendance. Induction ceremonies could be held during or right before the USO, when many former greats are in around anyway.

Or, would this just be too much linkage to the USTA and the crassness and commercialism of the USO? And, would the USTA even allow the HOF to operate independently on its property without getting its meaty paws all over it? (that's why I added "or adjacent" to the NTC). Probably not.

How is her being American or not being American relevant to being in the Hall of Fame? It's an International Honour. American's don't/shouldn't get prioritized over any other nation (and American's wouldn't want to be given special priviledges either - they would want to get in on their own merits).

Click to expand...

Good points. If they could, many Americans would probably have a Hall of Fame for everything and everyone, from nose picking to former presidents. I imagine a lot tennis players are indifferent to the Hall of Fame anyway.

As things stand, Helena Sukova deserves a place in the Tennis Hall of Fame. She is one of the greatest doubles players of all time. Pam Shriver deserves to be there as well. Yes, based on her doubles results, too, but she should be there nevertheless.
-----

Hingis, the youngest woman to be ranked No. 1, retired for the second time in 2007, when she was given a two-year suspension for testing positive for cocaine at Wimbledon. Hingis denied taking the drug but did not appeal the ruling

Sukova is being inducted alone, and is her doubles alone extraordinary? I think they are inducting her for her doubles alone, not her singles(which is in no way HOF worthy) Again this seems very weird. Unless she has contributed to the game in other ways I'm not aware of.[/QUOTE]

You do know she had a career comparable to Shriver and she did it WITHOUT MARTINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And better strokes. Just how many doubles titles do you think Shriver wins without Martina? Politics.

Personally, I am happy Sukova is nominated for the Hall of Fame. I always liked her. She just played in one of the toughest, most top heavy eras in the history of the women's game.

She had great doubles success over a decade of time. She and Novotna nearly (and should have) won the Grand Slam in 1990. She also won with Kohde Kilsch over Navratilova and Shriver, and then 10 years later with Hingis.

She was mainstay on the Czech Fed Cup team. And she comes from a big tennis family. I think that was a great contributing factor to her nomination. She wasn't just a doubles specialist. She did reach #4 in singles, and was a top tenner for nearly a decade.

As for her singles career, she reached major finals almost 10 years apart. In 1984, when she stunned Martina, ending her 74 match winning streak on grass in the Australian Open semis. And then beating Martina again and world #2 Arantxa en route to her second US Open final in 1993.

To get to her 4 major finals, she beat either Martina Navratilova or Chris Evert. And she lost her 4 major finals to Evert, Navratilova, and Graf (2x). She reached more major finals than any other women in the Open era, without winning one. A shame. But still, a stellar career nonetheless.

Sukova is being inducted alone, and is her doubles alone extraordinary? I think they are inducting her for her doubles alone, not her singles(which is in no way HOF worthy) Again this seems very weird. Unless she has contributed to the game in other ways I'm not aware of.

Click to expand...

You do know she had a career comparable to Shriver and she did it WITHOUT MARTINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And better strokes. Just how many doubles titles do you think Shriver wins without Martina? Politics.[/QUOTE]/

Helena had better strokes overall but Pam dominated her in both singles and doubles. As smart as Helena was Pam was smarter and knew how to set up points to her advantage better than almost anyone during her time. She turned having a limited game into an advantage by knowing how to force an opponent to give her a predictable and desired response.

It's unfair to punish Pam for being Martina's partner as there is more to a long term successful team than meets the eye. Martina could've chosen anyone that wasn't from a Warsaw Pact nation as a regular partner (she played a time or two with Temesvari before the wall fell) but she chose Pam.

Pam's peak years were entirely consumed by her years with Martina. Had she played with a Jordan, Sukova, Turnbull, etc. during those years I don't see why she couldn't have won a few slams even at Martina's expense. She did have a few doubles wins over Martina before, after, and I believe during her partnership with Martina.

However if Pam can make it on her doubles record (and service record) then I suppose Helena should too.

Shriver had to be a darn good doubles player for her and Martina to be so dominant as I am sure she was the others teams target in virtually every match. Anytime there was a choice it was probably "hit to Pam", and she had to withstand that and still come up with the goods for them to win all those matches. I doubt anyone in their right mind ever went out there to pick on Martina. It is like a beach volleyball team, you are only as good as your 2nd best player. Walsh and May are so dominant and incredible since Walsh is the best player in history, May is clearly the #2 player on her own team yet might well be the #2 player in history as well, and is unstoppable herself so even playing her she always gets the job done (not saying Pam is #2 in history at anything including doubles of course, just using a similar analogy).

Comparing Sukova and Shriver in singles one interesting question I ask is who was a tougher opponent for the greats. Sukova lost 21 matches in a row to Steffi Graf, and her only win over Graf was when Graf was 14 years old. Shriver lost 17 in a row to Evert, and her first ever win was over a 32 year old Evert. Sukova scored her first win over Evert when Chris was 31. It seems Sukova's game was only effective against Navratilova, definitely never against Graf, and not much against Chris. Shriver was often helpless when facing a young Steffi Graf (meaning from 86 on, although Steffi started her ownage of Pam as early as summer 85), lost 2 Wimbledon semis where she barely won any games, yet did beat her in a big match at the WTA Championships and had match point on her in another encounter. So it seems she was someone Steffi could sometimes roll over with ease, but could also underestimate and find tricky if she wasnt careful. Like Helena, Pam could also be a tricky opponent for Martina at times, and upset her twice at the U.S Open, although overall had less success than Helena did.

I would say overall their success rates vs top players in singles were about on par, so while the perception seems to be Helena was more dangerous, I am not sure if this is true. Which one had the better record vs Hana Mandlikova btw? I imagine Helena was too young to have ever played Tracy Austin, atleast in a meanginful match, so no point of comparision there, Shriver fared quite awful vs Tracy, only finally scoring her only couple wins when Tracy was already going down and towards retirement with major health issues. I am pretty sure Shriver has a much better record vs Sabatini, who was a real hot prospect at the time Sukova and Shriver were both around their primes, moreso than the 1 slam winner she ended up being.

Also the rankings, which were an accurate representation of the games pecking order back then unlike todays mess, seem to favor Shriver in a HUGE way. She was year end #4 atleast 5 years in a row, and even year end #3 in 1986. Sukova was year end #5 in 1986, and that was her only year ever higher than year end #7. Shriver even ended half or more of the years from 1981-1987 ranked higher than Hana Mandlikova, so while I guess that proves perhaps it is dangerous to read too much into the year end rankings as proof of who the better player is (obviously Pam is not a better singles player than Hana even if she was quite often ranked higher) it does speak in a huge way to Pam's consistency over many years and throughout each year, which it seems Helena while capable of big runs often was not matching. Helena's one big edge is all those slam finals she made vs Pam making only 1 at 16.

Shriver had to be a darn good doubles player for her and Martina to be so dominant as I am sure she was the others teams target in virtually every match. Anytime there was a choice it was probably "hit to Pam", and she had to withstand that and still come up with the goods for them to win all those matches. I doubt anyone in their right mind ever went out there to pick on Martina. It is like a beach volleyball team, you are only as good as your 2nd best player. Walsh and May are so dominant and incredible since Walsh is the best player in history, May is clearly the #2 player on her own team yet might well be the #2 player in history as well, and is unstoppable herself so even playing her she always gets the job done (not saying Pam is #2 in history at anything including doubles of course, just using a similar analogy).

Comparing Sukova and Shriver in singles one interesting question I ask is who was a tougher opponent for the greats. Sukova lost 21 matches in a row to Steffi Graf, and her only win over Graf was when Graf was 14 years old. Shriver lost 17 in a row to Evert, and her first ever win was over a 32 year old Evert. Sukova scored her first win over Evert when Chris was 31. It seems Sukova's game was only effective against Navratilova, definitely never against Graf, and not much against Chris. Shriver was often helpless when facing a young Steffi Graf (meaning from 86 on, although Steffi started her ownage of Pam as early as summer 85), lost 2 Wimbledon semis where she barely won any games, yet did beat her in a big match at the WTA Championships and had match point on her in another encounter. So it seems she was someone Steffi could sometimes roll over with ease, but could also underestimate and find tricky if she wasnt careful. Like Helena, Pam could also be a tricky opponent for Martina at times, and upset her twice at the U.S Open, although overall had less success than Helena did.

I would say overall their success rates vs top players in singles were about on par, so while the perception seems to be Helena was more dangerous, I am not sure if this is true. Which one had the better record vs Hana Mandlikova btw? I imagine Helena was too young to have ever played Tracy Austin, atleast in a meanginful match, so no point of comparision there, Shriver fared quite awful vs Tracy, only finally scoring her only couple wins when Tracy was already going down and towards retirement with major health issues. I am pretty sure Shriver has a much better record vs Sabatini, who was a real hot prospect at the time Sukova and Shriver were both around their primes, moreso than the 1 slam winner she ended up being.

Also the rankings, which were an accurate representation of the games pecking order back then unlike todays mess, seem to favor Shriver in a HUGE way. She was year end #4 atleast 5 years in a row, and even year end #3 in 1986. Sukova was year end #5 in 1986, and that was her only year ever higher than year end #7. Shriver even ended half or more of the years from 1981-1987 ranked higher than Hana Mandlikova, so while I guess that proves perhaps it is dangerous to read too much into the year end rankings as proof of who the better player is (obviously Pam is not a better singles player than Hana even if she was quite often ranked higher) it does speak in a huge way to Pam's consistency over many years and throughout each year, which it seems Helena while capable of big runs often was not matching. Helena's one big edge is all those slam finals she made vs Pam making only 1 at 16.

Click to expand...

I just love these folks who give 1 'dominant' player most of the credit in a doubles partnership. I call it the Fleming fallacy after the forgotten partner of McEnroe. Martina was the emotionally less stable member of that team. she was more likely to 'phone it in', or let temper control her, or love interests distract her. Pam kept the doubles fun, and kept the competitive fires burning long after the team, and the prospect, should have gotten stale .

Yeah and who do you suppose everyone, round after round, targeted on every break point, set point and game point in all those majors? If anyone had a choice where to hit that volley on big points, does anyone think they sent traffic Martina's way? Which one really had to be mentally tough?

Very true. Shriver was a huge part of that teams doubles success. People just assume it was all Martina based on her singles record, but this is flawed thinking since singles players nowhere near the caliber of Shriver like Raymond and Gigi Fernandez can be doubles legends. Shriver was an excellent singles player, just her assets were much better suited to doubles and her weakness less easily exposed than in singles.

Would she have won as much without Martina? Highly unlikey, that is to be expected when you are playing with arguably the all time and doubles GOAT. However Martina probably doesnt win as much with anyone but Pam either. It is no accident both had their most successful parternship together, but Pam was a great doubles player who could win major titles with some others as well, just as Martina was of course.

"Helena had better strokes overall but Pam dominated her in both singles and doubles. As smart as Helena was Pam was smarter and knew how to set up points to her advantage better than almost anyone during her time. She turned having a limited game into an advantage by knowing how to force an opponent to give her a predictable and desired response."

SUWANNEE is on the money with this. Great analysis. Folks who concentrate on her unorthodox strokes, truly miss the boat. For so many s/v's, the depth of their tactical sense is reached by deciding whether to hit the volley to the forehand, backhand or short. Pam was just plain smarter than the rest. She put a lot of thought into a match. Unfortunately, sometimes it was brains that did not come with confidence when things got tough. it sure did not come with mobility. She lumbered around a court.

I guess the reason she did so poorly vs Evert was Evert was also one of the smartest players of all time, so matched Pam in that area, in addition to having much better strokes. Pam had great volleys but not enough athleticsm or agility around the net either to ward off Evert's array of passing shots and lobs.